0. Introduction
The growing role of TV live interpreting as a means of communication across languages and cultures places before us the task to study the specific ways in which it differs from other types of Interpreting Mediated Events (IMEs), since the develop
ment of Interactive TV in the future is expected to increase the demand for TV inter
preters.
The variety of TV IMEs can be best explored within prototype theory by elabo
rating scales on the basis of parameters derived from the way of delivery of the SL text and the elements of the communicative situation, namely: the Participants parameter (handled by the Equal-Unequal scale); Text Type (the Orality-Literacy scale); the Setting (the Formality-Privacy and the Distance-Proximity scales);
Way of Delivery; the Topic of Discussion (the Objectivity-Subjectivity and Generality-Specificity scales) and the Goals of the PrimaryParticipants (the SharedGoals-ConfiictingGoalsscale).
The first four parameters seem to be of a greater significance in delineating the differences between TV and other types of IMEs. Therefore the remaining part of this paper will deal with them alone , because due to lack of space, it is impossible to offer a thorough analysis
The study is based on data collected from the two most frequent types of TV live interpreting used in Bulgaria now, namely: (i) Interviews, panels and all types of dis
cussions with the participation of foreigners, i.e. programmes structured as dialogues (e.g. the “Plus-Minus” business TV programme) and (ii) Samples of simultaneously interpreted programmes of the CNN, converted into Bulgarian in order to reach larger TV audiences.
l.The participants
In Conference or Lecture interpreting, for example, we have at least two major primary communicants (individuals or groups of individuals) speaking different lan
guages, with each of them alternatingly acquiring the roles of Speaker (Addresser) and Addressee, and the Interpreter interweaving the discourse between them by transforming their messages to one another into the language each of the partici
pants knows. Certainly, the event can be, and often is, attended by other people, e.g. journalists, technical staff, etc., but they are not the intended recipients, i.e. the Addressees and the whole transaction is executed with a view to attaining the goals of the participants with regard to each other.
Section 3. Interpreting
1.1 The dialogue type of TV IMEs
The communicative situation in TV interpreting, however, is more complicated.
In the discussion, or dialogue type of TV IME, for example, we have two casts of participants: (i) the on-screen Speaker and Addressee, who alternatingly change roles, their dialogue mediated by the Interpreter, and in some cases controlled by a moderator, and (ii) an off-screen cast consisting of (a) the TV channel programmers who, via the moderator in the studio, may guide the “on-screen” Participants in a way that would comply with the message the TV channel wants to send to the audi
ences, and (b) the off-screen Addressees - the TV audiences for whom, in fact, the programme is created. Therefore, the Interpreter plays the role of a Mediator in two communicative channels: (i) between Speaker and Addressee of the on-screen cast, and (ii) between the latter and the Initiator (the TV channel) on the one hand, and the TV audiences, on the other.
1.2 Simultaneous conversion of TV programmes
In the simultaneous conversion of whole chunks of foreign language TV pro
grammes (e.g. of the CNN into Bulgarian), the participants parameter with regard to the Addressee is simpler, because we have only one intended receiver - the TV audiences. However, they can be described as intended receivers only from the point of view of the Interpreter, because s/he is the one who is expected to tailor her/his text in a way that will reach them. As far as the Initiator (the original TV channel) is con
cerned, the audiences receiving the interpreted version are not its real Addressees, because the programme has not been created especially for them.
As to Speaker, the situation is more complicated, because what we have here is a multitude of voices, usually previously unknown to the Interpreter (with the excep
tion of the announcers, commentators, etc., who appear every day). Therefore, here the task of the Interpreter to act as Mediator between the Initiator (the original TV channel) and the TV audiences (the Bulgarian audiences in our case) involves a large number of difficulties.
2. Texts types. The Orality-Literacy scale
2.1 Complementary use of language and non-language
If the specificity of the Participants parameter can be assigned to Radio Inter
preting as well , the ” text type ” dimension can help us set TV Interpreting apart from all the other types of interpreting, because here we have a unique complemen
tary use of an enormous variety of verbal and non-verbal means of expression, with language and the pictorial code playing the dominant part.
Their relative weight, however, may differ substantially. In the dialogue type, for example, the visual channel can provide the Interpreter and the TV audiences with information about the participants themselves, with regard to their appearance, be
haviour and a number of kinesthetic and proxemic characteristic features. But what the TV audiences see on the screen usually is not a redundant description of what the participants are discussing, that is, the role of the pictorial code is lesser. In the
Bistra Alexieva
simultaneous conversion type, however, quite often most of what the announcers or commentators say about world developments, for example, is supported by documen
tary materials, that is, by what we see on the screen. This results in a higher degree of inter-semiotic redundancy due to the parallel use of language and non-language codes, which can help the Interpreter attain a higher degree of compression. And attaining a high degree of compression is obligatory because a greater time-lag will lead to mismatch between the Interpreter’s words and the picture on the screen.
The high relative weight of non-verbal means of expression places TV texts (com
prised of language and non-language) closer to the orality end of the Orality-Literacy scale.
2.2 Planning
Another parameter relevant to the position a text occupies on this scale is the degree of its planning. In the simultaneous conversion type we can have texts cover
ing almost the whole continuum - starting with the complete improvisation in spon
taneous interviews, up to the reading of previously written texts. The dialogue type ,however, seems to be gravitating towards mid-position and beyond, towards the orality end, though almost never reaching it, because even in the case of televised discussions, most of the moves in the discourse are usually previously planned.
3. The Formality-Privacy scale
The third highly distinctive feature of TV Interpreting is related to the setting, which can be described as involving a high degree of formality and publicity and low, or total lack of, privacy. The lack of privacy for the Primary Participants definitely affects their verbal and non-verbal performance, activating their self-monitoring mechanisms, which is conducive to a lower cultural markedness, more universal norms of behaviour and a more standard use of language.
As far as the Interpreter is concerned, the privacy parameter usually varies between full publicity in the cases when the Interpreter appears on the screen, and visual pri
vacy, i.e. when the Interpreter is “behind” the stage and it is only her/his voice that is heard.
4. The Distance-Proximity scale
Another extremely important characteristic feature of TV IMEs derives from the first part of the word “television", namely, “tele-“, indicating the great distance be
tween Speaker and the TV audiences, the lack of contact between them and (almost) no feedback.
The distance, however, between the “on-screen” participants in the dialogue type is usually very small, which involves direct contact between them, irrespective of the ancillary equipment they may be using, and assigns a greater role to kinesthetic and proxemic factors.
As far as the distance between the Primary Participants and the Interpreter is con
cerned, the parameter may acquire the following two major values: (i) The Interpreter is off-stage, i.e. s/he does not share the studio space with Speaker and Addressee,
Section 3. Interpreting
which usually involves the choice of the simultaneous mode of interpreting; and (ii) The Interpreter is in the studio and shares its space almost in the same manner as the Primary Participants do, which offers a larger number of choices concerning the mode of interpreting (see 5. below). High Proximity values for the distance between the Interpreter and the on-screen cast may facilitate the former’s performance due to the direct access to the non-verbal codes used by the latter; but it may also negatively affect the Interpreter’s kinesthetic and proxemic behaviour because of the total lack of privacy.
5. Way of delivery of the SL text and production of the TL text As can be seen, the choice of the simultaneous or consecutive mode is predeter
mined only in the case of TV Interpreting of whole chunks of foreign language pro
grammes because SI is the only possible way of coping with the non-stop way of delivery.
With regard to the dialogue type, however, there are three possible choices open, namely: simultaneous, consecutive and chouchotage. The decision concerning the mode of delivery, however, does not seem to depend on the time factor alone, but on the impact it may have on the TV audiences. Data from enquiries with Bulgarian TV viewers, for example, suggest that they would prefer to hear the voice of the foreign participant(s) in the original and the best solution for them is to watch discussions with: (I) chouchotage in the interpretation from Bulgarian into the foreign language and (ii) consecutive, when interpreting what the foreigner says because in this way the original will reach at least part of the audience, which will ensure the desired public control against manipulation.
6. Conclusions
(1) The complexity of the Participants parameter (the presence of on-screen and off-screen communicants) determines the specific values of other parameters as well.
(2) The complementary use of language and non-language in the making of a TV text involves a parallel use of the visual and auditory channels in its perception;
therefore quality here depends on the Interpreter’s capacity to receive information via the two channels simultaneously and to employ intersemiotic redundancy for attaining a higher compression.
(3) The choice between SI and Cl for the dialogue type should be guided not only by the fact that SI is a time-saver, but also by the need to assign the highest possible authenticity and credibility coefficients to the voices that matter, in our case, that of the foreigner participating in the discussion.
(4) The lack of privacy in TV interpreting enhances the role of kinesthetic and proxemic factors and demands from the interpreter professional skills and knowl
edge attainable via specialised training alone. And investment in such training will be an investment into the future because the ongoing technological development promises a much wider application of Interactive Television, which will ensure tele
contacts across languages. And high professionalism alone can ensure the good qual
ity of interpreting needed for the purpose.